Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.Login to AccountCreate an Account

Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

strel

Posted 03 January 2009 - 03:03 PM

strel

segmentation fault

Member

629 posts

Joined 24-February 08

OS:XP Pro x86

Country:

I hadn't seen it. OK. I didn't know this update, but I think it is not included there, first, for size, and second, this update don't exist for spanish language but for danish. In danish I've checked these files are created in administrative install, and third, where are the MB lost among administrative install and normal install?. It's something with the hungarian 3.5 SP1 language pack.

fenyo

Posted 03 January 2009 - 03:11 PM

fenyo

Newbie

Member

29 posts

Joined 04-November 05

I hadn't seen it. OK. I didn't know this update, but I think it is not included there, first, for size, and second, this update don't exist for spanish language but for danish. In danish I've checked these files are created in administrative install, and third, where are the MB lost among administrative install and normal install?. It's something with the hungarian 3.5 SP1 language pack.

strel

Posted 03 January 2009 - 03:20 PM

strel

segmentation fault

Member

629 posts

Joined 24-February 08

OS:XP Pro x86

Country:

I thought this was an update, sorry. Well no idea why microsoft is releasing another language pack for 3.0 SP2, but it should be fine. Although the script don't support it at the moment. Let me do some test.

But I really have no idea of what this last langpack is made for, and why it only exists for some languages.

strel

Posted 03 January 2009 - 04:59 PM

strel

segmentation fault

Member

629 posts

Joined 24-February 08

OS:XP Pro x86

Country:

Nop. I don't use it. But the basis of the script are the same old admin installs. After having a quick reading on HFSLIP basis, and take a quick look to the HFSLIP script, I think resultant installers from synthesized version should work too without problems in HFSLIP.

Any of you using it can confirm it. So, please...

I realize switchless feature is intended for using installers with HFSLIP, as I suspected. For future updates, I'll keep this feature to maintain compatibility with HFSLIP, but optionally, this is, people who don't use HFSLIP will can have unique set of installers that could be switched from silent to passive.

Jediron

Posted 03 January 2009 - 05:36 PM

Jediron

Member

3 posts

Joined 03-January 09

2 JedironDepends on the software you run. .NET is only for software that is made for using this frameworks ("managed code" in MS jargon). Not all software use .NET and not all software that use .NET, use the same #.# version. Maybe the software you use, needs only 2.0, but for ongoing updates of that software, the developer may update the code to a later .NET version. For example, paint .NET have changed its framework needs from 2.0 to 3.5 in recent versions. Up to you.Thx.

Well, i want to install it so that NET will always work, with everything. No hassle about version, NET is there; always. Is this possible ?

strel

Posted 03 January 2009 - 05:48 PM

strel

segmentation fault

Member

629 posts

Joined 24-February 08

OS:XP Pro x86

Country:

Use intallers for all the frameworks in your unattended set. You can rarely use an application that needs 1.1 but if you want to be sure include all. You can use the full merged installer or individual installers, read the install rules.

fenyo

Posted 04 January 2009 - 06:19 AM

I think because it contains only 3.0 SP2 LangPack alone. You can see it's date is the same when the 2.0/3.0/3.5 Langpack released. (2008. 11. 13.)

Now i've installed a clean XP on VMware again, i've installed .NET 3.5 SP1 full redistributable (231Mbytes) without internet access. After that i tried to install .NET 3.0 SP2 Language Pack from Microsoft Update Website, but it failed!! It have throwed me error code 0x13EC.So i installed .NET 3.5 SP1 langpack.After that i've visited MU website, 2.0 LangPack disappeared, but 3.0 SP2 LangPack still remains!!I've searched the whole C:\ for the 4 files you mentioned, but i found nothing.These files are truly not exist in any of the 3.0 SP2 hungarian Language Packs.This (the lack of these 4 files) must be the real reason why MU website offers me continually the .NET 3.0 SP2 LangPack.So microsoft screwed up again...

I bet i can't use these files from other languages...

Anyway, i want to thank you for your excellent support! I really appreciate it.Thank you!

strel

Posted 04 January 2009 - 06:47 AM

strel

segmentation fault

Member

629 posts

Joined 24-February 08

OS:XP Pro x86

Country:

I think continually if we don't manage the way for they to appear in the admin install of 3.5 SP2 language from 3.5 SP1 langpack.
And I don't think MS earns nothing with this. I though it was for updating stand alone 3.0 or 3.0 SP1 installations, but this doesn't explain the absence of some languages.

Moreover NetFx30SP2_x86hu.exe lacks file XPSEPSCLANGPACK-x86-hu-HU-langpack.exe. This file is installed when 3.0 SP2 language is installed from dotnetfx35langpack_x86hu.exe (SP1 version) langpack. But the install size indicated under Add/remove programs is not affected by this file, thus 3.0 SP2 language installed from NetFx30SP2_x86hu.exe shows the same install sizes, 3,8 MB and 10 MB, installing it through admin install (aka SNM installers) or directly, respectively. So NetFx30SP2_x86hu.exe, is not offering any advantage, rather the opposite.

But now this doesn't seem relevant to me since I could check there's other dotnetfx35langpack_x86XX.exe (SP1 version) langpacks that lacks the files of the first paragraph, for the 3.0 SP2 language portion, like turkish, italian, russian, chinese simplified... And installing 3.0 SP2 language from this langpacks, indicates the same install size when installed from admin install (aka SNM installers) as well as when installed directly from the langpack.

So I didn't checked all langpacks with this structure, but it seems the wrong behavior only happens with hungarian language admin install for 3.0 SP2.Anybody want to add something?

I should add that the file fenyo was prompted to download from MS Update, when 3.0 SP2 language is installed from admin install (aka SNM installers), this is, showing 3.8 MB installed; wasn't the same 3.0 SP2 language standalone, as stated before, but 3.0 SP0 language standalone. This happened only under hungarian XP, not under english XP (with .NET hungarian languages), to make things even more strange.

Inki

Posted 05 January 2009 - 02:10 AM

Inki

Junior

Member

59 posts

Joined 28-December 05

Nop. I don't use it. But the basis of the script are the same old admin installs. After having a quick reading on HFSLIP basis, and take a quick look to the HFSLIP script, I think resultant installers from synthesized version should work too without problems in HFSLIP.

Any of you using it can confirm it. So, please...

I realize switchless feature is intended for using installers with HFSLIP, as I suspected. For future updates, I'll keep this feature to maintain compatibility with HFSLIP, but optionally, this is, people who don't use HFSLIP will can have unique set of installers that could be switched from silent to passive.

I have not yet tried the installers with HFSLIP. However, I have noticed, that Tomcat76 used the utility msistub.exe, apparently to make it work with HFSLIP and Win2k, at least at some point, and this quote is from his original readme:

msistub.exeWindows 2000 doesn't handle direct calls to MSIEXEC.EXE at T-13, butmsistub.exe can communicate with it. This tool is used to install the.NET 1.1 and .NET 2.0 components.Author: Oleg_Sch.

Now I see, that the synthesized script does not refer to this utility, as Tomcat76's original script does, nor is the utility included.

So, I wonder if it might be correct to assume, that the script would not work with HFSLIP on Win2k, or does it include some other method to achieve the same result?

fenyo

Posted 05 January 2009 - 12:49 PM

fenyo

Newbie

Member

29 posts

Joined 04-November 05

I can't seem to find where to specify this parameter? Or possibly I'm misunderstanding how to use this.

I think this is because you have some unnecessary files.For example you don't need NetFx20SP1_x86.exe when you have dotnetfx35.exe.dotnetfx35.exe is .NET 3.5 full redistributable, which contains .NET 3.0 and .NET 2.0 too.And what is dotnetfx35a.exe ?

Caspean

Posted 05 January 2009 - 01:12 PM

Caspean

Newbie

Member

24 posts

Joined 04-January 09

Thanks for the quick response,

I get totally confused by which files I need if I want an all in one installer. The file that ends in a is the second download of the dotnetfx35a.exe is the the second file I downloaded that was named dotnetfx35.exe, I changed the name because I wasn't quite sure what to do with it.

strel

Posted 05 January 2009 - 01:28 PM

strel

segmentation fault

Member

629 posts

Joined 24-February 08

OS:XP Pro x86

Country:

Caspean, you need to feed the process with only 1 SP# of each .NET #.# version. So you have to find the correct matching of packets-in-work-folder/settings-in-.ini-file that feed the process correctly. Only packets with it's original filename can be processed. Read carefully the notes in the .ini file that explain what trigger each setting.

Caspean

Posted 05 January 2009 - 01:34 PM

Caspean

Newbie

Member

24 posts

Joined 04-January 09

Thanks for the response,

I have read it several times, very carefully. I think there is a bit of a language gap is all. It's a bit difficult for me to understand. Don't get me wrong I'm not complaining, I'm just trying to clarify. I'm an Midwest born and raised US citizen, heck sometimes we can't even understand people on the east coast of our own country.

I think I added some comments to the end of the post above at the same time you were posting. They might help clarify my confusion.

Thanks,

C

Edit: If I read it the way I mention above should I also read it as

NDP1.1sp1-KB928366-X86.exe Contains NDP1.1sp1-KB867460-X86.exe (because its a later update)